Skip to main content
. 2018 Nov 30;13(11):e0207794. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207794

Table 1. Study design for testing immunogenicity of αDCIR.HIV5pep and αCD40.HIV5pep vaccines.

W0 W2 W8 W10 W12 W14 W16 W18 W24 W26
G1 MVA MVA αDCIR.HIV5pep
⁄ poly-ICLC
αDCIR.HIV5pep
⁄ poly-ICLC
αDCIR.HIV5pep
⁄ poly-ICLC
G2 MVA MVA αCD40.HIV5pep
⁄ poly-ICLC
αCD40.HIV5pep
⁄ poly-ICLC
αCD40.HIV5pep
⁄ poly-ICLC
W0 W2 W4 W6 W12 W14 W22 W24
G3 αDCIR.HIV5pep
⁄ poly-ICLC
αDCIR.HIV5pep
⁄ poly-ICLC
αDCIR.HIV5pep
⁄ poly-ICLC
MVA
G4 αCD40.HIV5pep
⁄ poly-ICLC
αCD40.HIV5pep
⁄ poly-ICLC
αCD40.HIV5pep
⁄ poly-ICLC
MVA

The table shows immunization regimens used within the four groups (G1-4) in this study each group had six animals. In G1-2, MVA GagPolNef (4.5x107 pfu per animal) was administered subcutaneously (s.c.). The DC-targeting vaccines (250 μg per animal at each time point) were administered intradermally (i.d.). Poly-ICLC co-administration (1 mg per animal, s.c.) was adjacent to the site of DC-targeting vaccine administration. MVA = MVA GagPolNef. Samplings for fresh and frozen peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and plasma were at the weeks (W) indicated by shading. Note the timelines for G1-2 are different from G3-4.